[Bug 845] New: DWARF comments #1

[email protected]
Newsgroups gmane.linux.lsb.specification
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Comments from David Anderson: 
 
The proposed Elf LSB document uses the term 
        reletive 
in at least 3 places (Dwarf Execption Header Encoding). 
I believe the word in US English is 'relative' with just 2 'e', not 3. 
(British English could be different, I don't know.) 
 
Section 7.1 DWARF Exception Header Encoding 
wades right into differences with DWARF 2/3 with no 
overview or context.   Later the augmentation of 'P' 
mentions 'personality' and the terminology here 
in 7.1 does not use that term, so a reader has (I think) 
a very difficult time understanding that section 7.1 
relates to  the 'P' augmentation byte. 
Using identical terms in 7.1 and the 'P' documentation 
would be helpful. 
 
All of section 7 refers freely to DWARF3 (which, IMO, is just fine) 
but seems not to make clear that .eh_frame is a GNU Elf 
feature which uses DWARF3 .debug_frame as it's base design, 
but is, nonetheless, a section  
I fear failing to make this clear will confuse readers 
of the Elf document who do follow up by reading the DWARF3 document. 
The detail of the section-name  being different from .debug_frame 
won't, I fear, leap out at readers. 
 
 
The 7.2. DWARF CFI Extensions section 
is odd in that it names DWARF2 and links to it, but 
adds DWARF3 operations.  It seems to me that the DWARF3 
document on FreeStandards.org would be the better document 
to reference, but also mentioning the DWARF2 document 
would be fine.  With DWARF3 referenced, calling the *_sf 
operations 'additional' seems odd. 
Actually this comment applies generally.  Linking to 
the DWARF3 document as a base seems more applicable than 
DWARF2.  
 
 
 
 
Typo alert: 
"The Agumentation String indicates the presence of some 
optional fields, and how those fileds should be intepreted. 
                               ^^^^^^  spelling error here. 
Each character in the augmentation string in the CIE can be 
interpreted as below:" 
 
 
The CIE entry Frame Description Entry have some minor problems too. 
Mainly: neither it nor the CIE of .eh_frame give lengths of the fields 
for most fields.  Nor do they refer to the DWARF2/3 documents 
as additional guidance (where such applies). 
Nor to they make clear which fields are 'just like DWARF3' and 
which are .eh_frame specific.   
 
--    
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email   
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.